Just how sovereign ARE the US states?

[colonial]

**I have been playing the political chat room game for about eight years, **
and this is the first time I have ever incited odds of 5-1 against me.

I do not have the energy to conduct extended debate against such odds.
Therefore I will reply to each interlocutor one more time, and then depart.

@Shagnasty

However, your analogy of a U.S. state being equivalent of a state county is completely flawed if not flat-out wrong. Lots of people visualize it that way however but that doesn’t any more true. The U.S. is set up as true federalist system and not a top-down hierarchy. The only thing that prevents U.S. states from acting more like sovereign nations is they have found that binding together and copying success from one another is more productive than trying to be unique but there isn’t anything in the Constitution that prevents radical differences.

US states do not operate like sovereign nations because of the US Constitution,
**especially Article I, and various Supreme Court decisions, for example White v Texas, **
which forbids exercise of such sovereign behavior as secession.

@Shagnasty

One easy to comprehend example of that is that the U.S. president is not the ‘boss’’ of the state governors and Congress is not above the state legislatures. They each have their roles and the governor of a state is a chief executive that answers to no one except for the people of that state.

I agree the generalization I made does not adequately describe the reality
**of the various executive branches of the US. However, on the issue of sovereignty, **
the state governors cannot be reasonably compared to executive leaders of independent nations.

@Shagnasty

States can and do disobey federal laws all the time when they don’t think they are justified. Marijuana is completely illegal for personal use everywhere in the U.S. according to the U.S. government but don’t tell that to the states have made medical marijuana legal. That is just one example of many.

**In the specific case of medical marijuana the 1st Google search page provides **
**articles on Federal Prosecutions in Michigan and Oregon. Specify “California” **
in the search and you get the following cite for 100s of Federal cases:

Federal Medical Marijuana Cases in California & elsewhere

**Otherwise, and in general, the US Supreme Court and the US Federal government **
**may combine to overrule state law, and to enforce their decision with armed force, **
**as they did during the Civil Rights era. **

@Shagnasty

Visualize the U.S. as a simple tree with branches coming down if you want but you will be completely incorrect in practice in theory.

**I agree this would be an oversimplification. However, the practical and theoretical **
supremacy of the Federal Government is not in question.

@Captain Amazing

Technically not. Technically, WV was established by the “Reorganized Government of Virginia”, which the federal government recognized as the authorized government of Virginia.

@friedo

Actually, the West Virginians did…

@MEBuckner

Technically, it (that is, the federal government) didn’t**… **

**“Unilateral” may be too strong a word to use for the events leading to the creation **
**of WV. However, the Federal government alone had the power to provide the events **
**with legal sanction, and there was no opportunity for VA to appeal. **

@friedo

It doesn’t occur, because it is specifically prohibited by the Constitution unless the states concerned agree with it. No such agreement is necessary where a state wishes to redraw the boundaries of its municipalities, since municipalities are not sovereign entities and the state’s power to create and abolish devolved governments is absolute.

**I actually think you have the better argument here, as far as modern practice **
**is concerned. Historical action by Federal government in relation to the various territories **
**provides many examples of redrawing borders, but the states have many privileges **
that territories did not have, including inviolable borders (rebellion introducing a presumable exception)

@friedo

No. The analogy you drew is that the relationship between the federal government and the states is similar to that between the states and their counties. A state government has absolute power to create and abolish county governments, and remove and appoint administrators of those governments. The federal government has no such power over state governments.

**“Absolute power” means that state governments with all their elected officials **
may be abolished on whim, and I do not believe that could possibly be true.
Even if the states provide themselves with a semblance of such a right in
**their constitutions I do not believe the courts could have concurred. **

@friedo

The prevailing legal theory amongst the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction Era was that the former Confederate states had given up their shared sovereignty upon secession and were now conquered federal territory. That’s why each one had to go through a process of readmission to the union. The merit of that theory is highly debatable, but that’s what happened: the former Confederate states were not considered to be states of the union at the time of their administration during Reconstruction.

**This reply does nothing to rebut my original rejoinder. Incidentally, ****prevailing legal theory **
also held that the CS never left the Union.

@friedo

What legal means? We live in a country that is supposed to operate under the rule of law. You can’t just “hope” that some legal means exist; if they do, you should be able to point to something in the Constitution or precedent that says the federal government can do this.

So if an entire state were to become a Detroit we just let it hang fire?
I doubt it. USSC Justices Robert Jackson and Arthur Goldberg observed
that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and we both know how radically
different Constutional interpreations have evolved. Taking over a state
would obviously bw justitifed only in exteme conditions which have never
**occurred aside from what followed secession. **

@friedo

Actually, taxing authority of state governments is barely restricted by the Constitution at all. That’s why they can levy income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, vice taxes, fuel taxes, and pretty much every other kind of tax you can think of. Not poll taxes though; those are illegal due to a Constitutional amendment ratified by the states.

**I was thinking of internal duties in restraint of interstate commerce, and of tariffs **
on imports, but I agree I overstated the case and that you have the better of this point.

@friedo

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Do you have a legal theory under which the federal government could abolish and confiscate Michigan’s treasury? Do you understand the difference between a US state and a devolved government in a federal territory?

**What I am saying is that this may only be resorted to in the most extreme circumstances, **
**and not as you said earlier as an arbitrary, “absolute” right of the state government. **
**Those treasuries ultimately belong to the people whose taxes provided them, **
**and cases of confiscation must be as rare, proportionally, as confiscations taking place **
**as the reult of the Civil War. **

@friedo

It means that states have a legal “personhood” that allows them to act as an individual to enter contracts, petition the courts, sue people and be sued, and so on.

**I doubt that a state can prevent a municipal body it is trying to abolish from defending **
its right to existence in court.

@friedo

Please share how this would happen. A feeling is not good enough for a fact-based forum. (It’s largely moot anyway, since nobody would buy Michigan’s bonds if they were to do this.)

Nah, I’ll let the bean counters and the legal eagles flesh out the details this time.

@friedo

There’s certainly interesting arguments to be had about the extent to which US states are sovereign and what the precise meaning of shared sovereignty is and so forth. If you want to explore that, fine. But your analogy comparing the relationship between the federal government and the states and the relationship between the states and counties is completely and entirely wrong.

It is not entirely wrong, and was not meant to be exact.

Nevertheless, I will grant you the edge in the exchange.

@RickJay

As others have pointed out, you don’t get it at all. In fact, lots of countries have some degree of sovereignty at sub-federal levels. Canadian provinces have, in any sense that matters, essentially the same sovereignty as U.S. states.

**Anyone who begins by confounding the different federal systems of two different countries **
needs to start over.

Canadian federalism has nothing to do with US federalism.

BTW don’t the Canadian provinces enjoy a right of secession? The US states
assuredly do not. If so then the Canadian provinces retain a degree of sovereignty
**unrecongnizable ****(since the 1860s) in the US system. **

@RickJay

What gives an entity sovereignty is the ability to set law in a manner that cannot be legally superseded by a greater sovereignty. An entity must have some degree of paramount, supreme authority of some kind. And in some areas, U.S. states and Canadian provinces do, in fact, have unchallengeable authority.

@RickJay

Consider this; the State of New York cannot legally be subdivided, changed, dissolved or ejected from the United States of America by the federal government. They’re stuck with the State of New York. Forever. And certain state power simply cannot be taken away, ever. There are legal grey areas but the existence and central rights of the State of New York are something the government of the United States cannot change. That is a degree of sovereignty.

I have elsewhere granted that I overstated the case.

**The fact is that almost all state activity is subject to appeal for redress, and in fact **
state law has been frequently reversed.

**So while the states may enjoy certain priviliges of sovereignty such as those ****you mention **
**(provided they do not rebel) the subordinate condition of the states is an equally prominent **
fact of their existence

@RickJay

But by comparison, the CITY of New York has no sovereignty whatsoever of any kind. As a day-to-day matter the City of New York exercises great power (it’s a substantially bigger government than many states) but every single power it has, and its very existence, is at the pleasure and whim of the State of New York. of the State government decided to dissolve the City of New York, they could do it.

If they decided to take away some kind of right or power from cities, they could do it tomorrow. There’s no ultimate legal barrier; the State of New York could, on Monday, decide to split New York City up into its old five boroughs, or divide into ten cities, or almost anything, and although there’s be legal fights, ultimately they can do it. But the feds cannot dissolve the State of New York.

**I have earlier contested the accuracy of the word “whim”, and I do so again here. **
**The American legal system in general enjoins prohibits arbitrary behavior by government entities. **

@RickJay

Indeed, in my home, the Province of Ontario, the provincial government, which exercises some sovereignty, unilaterally eliminated dozens of municipal governments a few years back to create “megacities.” Toronto is an amalgamation of six component cities; those cities were simply wiped from existence with the stroke of a pen. Many other municipalities were eaten up and merged into Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury et al. They had, ultimately, no choice in the matter. But the government of Canada cannot legally dissolve the Province of Ontario, or merge it with Manitoba, becauyse it possesses legal sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution.

Canadian federalism has nothing to do with US federalism.

@RickJay

Is a U.S. state or a Canadian province AS sovereign as a totally independent nation state? No. But it has SOME sovereignty, by definition.

I agree they have more than I originally argued, but not for any of the
**specious reasons you have cited. **

**Anyone who begins and then finishes by confounding the different federal systems **
of two different countries needs to do the whole thing over.

[RickJay]

colonial, we’d ask that you avoid the use of blaring colors and fonts and such for distinguishing different poster’s texts; it’s really not necessary and it’s an eyesore. Thanks.

• RickJay, Moderator

Back to the issue:

[QUOTE=colonial]
Anyone who begins by confounding the different federal systems of two different countries needs to start over. Canadian federalism has nothing to do with US federalism.
[/QUOTE]

But it has everything to do with understanding the concept of sovereignty in a federal system. If more than one country is demonstrated to have such a thing that provides more examples and contrasts. Of course I know the two systems are different - I’m Canadian - but they’re similar, and both provide an example of sub-federal sovereignty.

BTW don’t the Canadian provinces enjoy a right of secession?

No. There is no statutory framework for it; as with the USA, the secession of a part of the country would, legally, require a Constitutional amendment agreed to by both parties. Or a big war.

So while the states may enjoy certain priviliges of sovereignty such as those you mention (provided they do not rebel) the subordinate condition of the states is an equally prominent fact of their existence.

Indeed it is. Again, states are not AS sovereign as the federal government. They are less sovereign. But they are still sovereign.

[Koxinga]

@Ravenman

As far as Taiwan and the Knights of Malta, Taiwan is currently a complex case. It is not generally recognized as a country, despite it walking, talking, and quacking like a country. I’m unaware of the Knights of Malta being a governmental organization that has a recognizable claim on land, population, and a functioning recognized government.

I think these two examples prove that the concept of sovereignty is not necessarily correlated with the status of being a country. Taiwan is a de facto country in every sense of the word, yet is not widely recognized as sovereign. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has no territory, yet has diplomatic relations with 104 countries, observer status in the UN and is “widely considered a sovereign subject of international law.”

As for a sub-national entities being recognized as internationally sovereign, I wonder if the Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR, then-constituents of the Soviet Union, could be argued to have been granted such when they were admitted to the United Nations as full members.

[colonial]

@RickJay

colonial, we’d ask that you avoid the use of blaring colors and fonts and such for distinguishing different poster’s texts; it’s really not necessary and it’s an eyesore. Thanks.

• RickJay, Moderator

Request denied. I will format my posts as I see fit.

@RickJay

Back to the issue…

As I said in my last post I am departing (from further discussion of the issue).

[Acsenray]

Since it’s not among the enumerated powers of the federal government, the states as sovereigns are free to create any offense, such as “popping a sprocket,” “blowing a gasket,” or “melting down.”

[Ravenman]

@Koxinga

Taiwan is a de facto country in every sense of the word, yet is not widely recognized as sovereign. .

Actually, I’d reverse that. Taiwan is clearly sovereign: the government is functioning and has fully authority to make laws and administer itself without restriction by any other political body. Laws in Taiwan do not require the permission or approval of the PRC, for example, even though the PRC applies significant pressure on Taiwan.

However, Taiwan may not be a country in the sense that it is generally not recognized by the international community as being independent from China, even though Taiwan’s government operates autonomously, which everyone recognizes.

[Colibri]

@colonial

Request denied. I will format my posts as I see fit.

[Moderator Warning]

No you won’t. If a moderator instructs you to refrain from doing something, you need to comply. This is an official warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. I am further instructing you to refrain from using distracting colors and fonts in future posts. Failure to comply may result in additional warnings as well as deletion of the offending posts.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator.

[bump]

@colonial

Otherwise I have of this analogously occurring recently in Michigan. If an entire state
were to become as dysfuctional as, say, Detroit, legal means could probably be found
to lover its admistration. At least I hope means could be found.

The Feds haven’t tried to do anything to Louisiana yet, so that argument’s pretty well disproven.